Yet no-one else seems to have a problem...
Yet no-one else seems to have a problem...
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
hallelujah
i've only been hounding you because i've never, ever seen you admit a mistake before.....
....could have done without the "however...." and you should really apologise to david, but you can't have everything....
Okay, tell me, is your Buddhism a discovery or an invention.
By your own cogitation and adheration and verbalization of your core Buddhism worth your thinking process, tell me what it is, and whether it is a discovery or an invention from Gautama, or from your own thinking process and you tag on it the label of Buddhism.
Yrreg
By your own cogitation and adheration and verbalization of your core Buddhism worth your thinking process, tell me what it is, and whether it is a discovery or an invention from Gautama, or from your own thinking process and you tag on it the label of Buddhism.
Yrreg
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
No. I won't play your games, Yrreg.
Conclude erroneously away.
As far as I can tell, you're intent on destroying Buddhism because you believe that it threatens your beliefs (silly Christianity, if I'm not mistaken).
You don't seem to have anything worth listening to on the subjects of Buddhism, Christianity, philosophy, or anything else.
Since I don't believe in the supernatural, it doesn't matter to me what the source of an idea is - if it is interesting and catches my attention, I'll ponder on it awhile; if it stays interesting, I'll put it in my pocket. I've got some pretty cool ideas in my pocket, none of which I'm inclined to share with you. CPBS, and all that.
You don't seem to have a proper appreciation for fiction. I won't attempt to teach you about it.
To what do you aspire? If it is respect or friendship, you've been doing a lousy job. Inspiring fear? Nope. Persuasion? You've got to be kidding. The pursuit of truth? You wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ***, as I'm sure it has, many times.
I think you're ready to move on to your next intellectual adventure - the stock market awaits you.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Uh huh, so after all this time, you still haven't actually read any buddhism. Just making fun of your mother in law still, how sad.
Nothing personal taken.
Did you find your soul yet?
Here is the eightfold path as presented by me. With apologies to one and all, this is just my POV.
First is the use of the word right, so substitute healthy.
1. Healthy view
(To remember that thoughts are just thoughts, emotions are just emotions, perceptions are just perceptions, that the body is just the body and that habits are just habits. They are conditioned, ephemeral and are what they are, there is no transcendent self. The practice of the eightfold path is a practice, not a goal.)
2. Healthy intention
(To approach the world with the intent of not harming things, people or other critters. To intend to avoid harming, to intend to be mindful and aware of acts, to intend to create less harm in the world.)
3. Healthy speech
(To approach the world with speech that is peaceful, polite and friendly. To avoid gossip, negative speech and harmful speech.)
4. Healthy action
(To act in a fashion which is not harmful, to refrain from harmful acts.)
5. Healthy livelihood
(To find a profession that does not create harm.)
6. Healthy effort
(To apply one's efforts to reducing harm, avoiding harm, taking accountability for choices, being patient and flexible. To remember that thoughts are choices, that there is the conditioned and that a person may choose to change the routines of life.)
7. Healthy mindfulness
(To focus on the healthful, to focus on one activity at a time, to monitor the thoughts, emotions and acts. To be gentle but to notice that which is harmful and that which is healthy. To encourage the health and discourage the harmful.)
8. Healthy concentration
(To bend all of one's life, acts, thoughts and self awareness to the promotion of health and the avoidance of that which is harmful.)
Escapism as usual.
See? He says he has some core of Buddhism which he finds meaningful to himself, then you ask him to say it in his own words, by his own excogitation, adheration, and verbalization; what happens? He runs away.
As I say say in that thread about money experts, etc.: Avoiding the beef and seeking a safe house in quibbles.
Yrreg
See? He says he has some core of Buddhism which he finds meaningful to himself, then you ask him to say it in his own words, by his own excogitation, adheration, and verbalization; what happens? He runs away.
As I say say in that thread about money experts, etc.: Avoiding the beef and seeking a safe house in quibbles.
Yrreg
Seriously now, no romantic idealization of the Gautama.
You mean in your expositon of the eightfold path of the Gautama, that what he displays per your exposition, to be right or healthy, if they be workable they had not been known to the intellignet life form that is man until Gautama came along?
Go over them again and see whether there is anything right or healthy for mankind and not known to mankind until Gautama came along. Hint: Gautama did not learn anything about right and healthful living from his parents and forebears and contemporaries until he went into long years of meditation and came up with them?
Yrreg
You mean in your expositon of the eightfold path of the Gautama, that what he displays per your exposition, to be right or healthy, if they be workable they had not been known to the intellignet life form that is man until Gautama came along?
Go over them again and see whether there is anything right or healthy for mankind and not known to mankind until Gautama came along. Hint: Gautama did not learn anything about right and healthful living from his parents and forebears and contemporaries until he went into long years of meditation and came up with them?
Yrreg
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Not at all, Yrreg.
I'm able to talk about Buddhism and other things of interest to me. I've done so with friends.
You are not my friend.
I have contempt for you, your beliefs, and your agenda.
I will do nothing to encourage you.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Yoiks and away!
I am not sure you have read anything other people post on the board Yrreg.
On this forum and in science and skepticism in general, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim!
A. Yrreg is the one stating and claiming that there is nothing original in buddhism that is not predated by something somewhere else .
B. Therefore if in this forum, science and skepticism the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
c. It is up to Yrreg to prove his unsubstantiated claim that there is nothing original in buddhism that is not predated by something somewhere else .
And for you to state
Shows only the following (choose one or more):
1. You are incapable of finding evidence to support your claim.
2. There is no evidence to support your claim.
3. You are unwilling to find evidence to support your claim.
4. You lack the motivation to support your claim.
5. You do not believe that you should find evidence to support your claim.
6. You feel that you can make baseless assertions from your personal perspective and just have them taken as gospel because of your personal perspective.
And then there is the whole straw-man logic, I did not state that all of the alleged historical buddha's teaching was original. So I do not have to defend a statement I did not make.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Hita Dustin:
In an effeort to make amends I have corrected the spelling errors in three of my posts.
First post
It comes down to a number of things, I really despise most forms of fundamental Xianity, but have met many a decent fundamentalist. I could blame the structure of the church for the behavior of the individuals, and I sure used to foam at the mouth about it.
However obnoxious I find the particulars of the institutions and the behavior of the individuals I can not blame the individual who might or might not have existed and was called Jesus and who might or might not have made the statement attributed to them. In fact I am still rather a fan of the teachings of Jesus.
Now when it comes to your post. There are a number of questions that can be answered to generate my POV:
1. Who made the statements that “universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness”. Not the AHB? The four noble truths (definitely valued laden words there) are the four noble truths about what? Suffering? And while the buddha(alleged and likely mythological) stated that he felt he found the cause of suffering and the path to it's easing, he also put a lot of stock on self examination, critical thinking and rejecting his path f one disagreed with it.
2. Who made the statements about "meaning of life and understanding of the universe”? And should buddhism be held to the statements of a particular woo woo individual?
I and many others have stated repeatedly and endlessly on this forum that there are many foolish, mistaken, superstitious and stupid beliefs that are practiced in buddhism.
However is one examines the Pali canon which had five hundred years of oral traditions and then was edited by a mass conclave after the alleged teaching of the alleged historical buddha, you will find that the 'buddha' was rather careful in the statements that they made, that there is a rather careful statement of the teachings, that there is an underlying foundation of critical thought and that self knowledge and scepticism seem to be encouraged.
Now this does not of course prevent the followers of the AHB from acting really stupid, the first major schism in buddhism was caused by what? A debate over whether an arharant has seminal emissions after attaining a state of nibbanna? And then there is the syncretic path of the phenomena known as religions. So yes, the majority of buddhists around the world may engage in foolish superstitions and dangerous woo beliefs.
Just as the Xians have argued if Jesus wore a purse and others have made statements that "Jesus would support the Iraq war."
So one can find the lotus above the mud or the jewel in the sow’s ear.
(eight spelling errors)
Next post
There are answers if you want to know them. The AHB taught that a person should examine the teachings and judge them for merit and then if they are found useful to follow them.
I doubt you can show that the AHB said they had found the meaning of life.
The buddha taught the following.
There is suffering and a way to ease that suffering.
There is impermanence in all things. There is no self or soul.
There is a way to live your life to reduce suffering.
The buddha (AHB) did not teach that there was one and only one true path, the buddha9AHB) did not teach reincarnation. The buddha (AHB) taught that he was human. The buddha (AHB) taught that there were other paths and other teachers. The Pali Canon is alleged to contain the teachings of a number of people, Sariputta very notably.
The buddha (AHB) did appear to have some issues with recognizing the equality of women.
The AHB died after eating poison mushrooms or bad pork.
(one spelling error)
next post
The buddha is alleged to have been a male who lived in northern India 2500 BCE, he founded a system of philosophy and practice. He had many followers, they spread to many different places. There is a thread of monastic buddhism which was an oral tradition set down five hundred years later when a bunch of monks got together and recited the oral tradition and wrote down what they felt was consistent with the recitations. They say they just recited their separate oral traditions and wrote down the ones that agreed with each other. This is the so called Pali Canon.
Meanwhile there were other strains of monastic buddhism that spread. In the Mahayana tradition buddhism merged with many different local traditions, in the mahayana traditions anything which leads to enlightenment is considered to be buddhism. Most of their traditions were written down at various times after the writing of the Pali canon.
So there are multiple threads to what comprise the teachings of the buddha. There is the 'southern' monastic tradition where there is an oral tradition that is collated and edited five hundred years after the death of the AHB. There are all the other traditions of buddhism which are monastic in origin but much more syncretic.
So what is a teaching of the buddha? Some will say that anything put in the mouth of the buddha is a teaching of the buddha. Many (myself included) take the historical perspective that from the archeological perspective the Pali Canon seems to be very consistent with the recording of an oral tradition of buddhism that is self consistent, either through the stated process of collation or a process of editing an oral tradition.
The texts of the other traditions are harder to verify as to the date of writing and transmission from the Alleged Historical Buddha. There are similarities in the teaching of certain stories and doctrines, there is a complete divergence of other stories and doctrines.
So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places.
Which is the teaching of the AHB? Most likely none of them, no more than the Gospels represent the actual teachings of Jesus. We can look at the similarities in the documents, it would appear that the four truths and the eightfold path and some of the precepts are very consistent. In buddhism most schools take the Pali Canon to be the best source of the teachings of the buddha. It is the source of most of the sutras/suttas. The Pali canon does seem to represent the most consistent of the documents, it contradicts very few of the things that are consistent across all the documents. But that is also because it is the source text for much of buddhism.
So I tongue in cheeks state the Pali canon is the "teachings of the buddha".
But anything placed in the mouth of the buddha is also a 'teaching of the buddha'.
And as to what comprises a buddhist, any one who calls themselves a buddhist.
Some traditions practice 'no harm to life' others eat meat, they are all buddhists.
What makes you a buddhist is following the eightfold path and the 'teaching of the buddha'.
According to the story of the death of the buddha his dying words were "Be ye lamps unto yourselves", he is alleged to have told Ananada when he was wailing about the loss of the buddha.
The Kalama sutta is the main one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra
The value or lack thereof is up to the individual. I can tell you what I find to be valuable.
The first big schism in buddhism came about because of an argument over whether an arharant/arhat would have seminal emissions when they slept. Sounds silly to me.
(sixteen spelling errors)
In an effeort to make amends I have corrected the spelling errors in three of my posts.
First post
Hiya Dustin!
It comes down to a number of things, I really despise most forms of fundamental Xianity, but have met many a decent fundamentalist. I could blame the structure of the church for the behavior of the individuals, and I sure used to foam at the mouth about it.
However obnoxious I find the particulars of the institutions and the behavior of the individuals I can not blame the individual who might or might not have existed and was called Jesus and who might or might not have made the statement attributed to them. In fact I am still rather a fan of the teachings of Jesus.
Now when it comes to your post. There are a number of questions that can be answered to generate my POV:
1. Who made the statements that “universal truths" are and the "only way to true happiness”. Not the AHB? The four noble truths (definitely valued laden words there) are the four noble truths about what? Suffering? And while the buddha(alleged and likely mythological) stated that he felt he found the cause of suffering and the path to it's easing, he also put a lot of stock on self examination, critical thinking and rejecting his path f one disagreed with it.
2. Who made the statements about "meaning of life and understanding of the universe”? And should buddhism be held to the statements of a particular woo woo individual?
I and many others have stated repeatedly and endlessly on this forum that there are many foolish, mistaken, superstitious and stupid beliefs that are practiced in buddhism.
However is one examines the Pali canon which had five hundred years of oral traditions and then was edited by a mass conclave after the alleged teaching of the alleged historical buddha, you will find that the 'buddha' was rather careful in the statements that they made, that there is a rather careful statement of the teachings, that there is an underlying foundation of critical thought and that self knowledge and scepticism seem to be encouraged.
Now this does not of course prevent the followers of the AHB from acting really stupid, the first major schism in buddhism was caused by what? A debate over whether an arharant has seminal emissions after attaining a state of nibbanna? And then there is the syncretic path of the phenomena known as religions. So yes, the majority of buddhists around the world may engage in foolish superstitions and dangerous woo beliefs.
Just as the Xians have argued if Jesus wore a purse and others have made statements that "Jesus would support the Iraq war."
So one can find the lotus above the mud or the jewel in the sow’s ear.
(eight spelling errors)
Next post
Calling one's self a buddhist.
I completely agree and totally understand, there is a lot, and I mean a whole lot of foolish nonsense in buddhism.
There are answers if you want to know them. The AHB taught that a person should examine the teachings and judge them for merit and then if they are found useful to follow them.
I doubt you can show that the AHB said they had found the meaning of life.
The buddha taught the following.
There is suffering and a way to ease that suffering.
There is impermanence in all things. There is no self or soul.
There is a way to live your life to reduce suffering.
The buddha (AHB) did not teach that there was one and only one true path, the buddha9AHB) did not teach reincarnation. The buddha (AHB) taught that he was human. The buddha (AHB) taught that there were other paths and other teachers. The Pali Canon is alleged to contain the teachings of a number of people, Sariputta very notably.
The buddha (AHB) did appear to have some issues with recognizing the equality of women.
The AHB died after eating poison mushrooms or bad pork.
(one spelling error)
next post
They are simple questions. If you don't want to answer them then don't. But please be snarky if you wish, it is not my problem.
I make no assumptions about what you know or don't know so I state what I believe and have studied.
The buddha is alleged to have been a male who lived in northern India 2500 BCE, he founded a system of philosophy and practice. He had many followers, they spread to many different places. There is a thread of monastic buddhism which was an oral tradition set down five hundred years later when a bunch of monks got together and recited the oral tradition and wrote down what they felt was consistent with the recitations. They say they just recited their separate oral traditions and wrote down the ones that agreed with each other. This is the so called Pali Canon.
Meanwhile there were other strains of monastic buddhism that spread. In the Mahayana tradition buddhism merged with many different local traditions, in the mahayana traditions anything which leads to enlightenment is considered to be buddhism. Most of their traditions were written down at various times after the writing of the Pali canon.
So there are multiple threads to what comprise the teachings of the buddha. There is the 'southern' monastic tradition where there is an oral tradition that is collated and edited five hundred years after the death of the AHB. There are all the other traditions of buddhism which are monastic in origin but much more syncretic.
So what is a teaching of the buddha? Some will say that anything put in the mouth of the buddha is a teaching of the buddha. Many (myself included) take the historical perspective that from the archeological perspective the Pali Canon seems to be very consistent with the recording of an oral tradition of buddhism that is self consistent, either through the stated process of collation or a process of editing an oral tradition.
The texts of the other traditions are harder to verify as to the date of writing and transmission from the Alleged Historical Buddha. There are similarities in the teaching of certain stories and doctrines, there is a complete divergence of other stories and doctrines.
So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places.
Which is the teaching of the AHB? Most likely none of them, no more than the Gospels represent the actual teachings of Jesus. We can look at the similarities in the documents, it would appear that the four truths and the eightfold path and some of the precepts are very consistent. In buddhism most schools take the Pali Canon to be the best source of the teachings of the buddha. It is the source of most of the sutras/suttas. The Pali canon does seem to represent the most consistent of the documents, it contradicts very few of the things that are consistent across all the documents. But that is also because it is the source text for much of buddhism.
So I tongue in cheeks state the Pali canon is the "teachings of the buddha".
But anything placed in the mouth of the buddha is also a 'teaching of the buddha'.
And as to what comprises a buddhist, any one who calls themselves a buddhist.
It depends upon the tradition and calling yourself a buddhist.
Some traditions practice 'no harm to life' others eat meat, they are all buddhists.
What makes you a buddhist is following the eightfold path and the 'teaching of the buddha'.
Many places, I can cite my sources, can you?
According to the story of the death of the buddha his dying words were "Be ye lamps unto yourselves", he is alleged to have told Ananada when he was wailing about the loss of the buddha.
The Kalama sutta is the main one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutra
It is up to each person to study the buddha's teaching and decide the value for themselves.
The value or lack thereof is up to the individual. I can tell you what I find to be valuable.
You have a teacher (alleged) and you have the followers, 2 1/2 thousand years later how do you decide what is a teaching of the teacher and what is a teaching of the follower? That is called history.
The first big schism in buddhism came about because of an argument over whether an arharant/arhat would have seminal emissions when they slept. Sounds silly to me.
Misspelling. the phenomena of religion is syncretic. I believe it means acquiring other traditions.
Google, "Two Popes", "i dui Papi", Avignon Papacy
If ya don't know I won't tell you.
(sixteen spelling errors)
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Dustin, I also looked for the ten unwholesome acts in the Pali canon, it would appear that it is not attributed to the buddha in that tradition. There are ten wholesome acts I can find.
I rest my case.
What I really should be doing as we all should be doing when it comes to worldviews, study the psychology of people holding to a worldview, in particular the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum who claim to be and are proud to be called and to call themselves Buddhists, withal professing to practice critical thinking and to be keen on empirical evidence.
And what are the source materials for such a study? What else but the messages of people like the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum.
Just read the responses of Buddhists here to my comments about their core Buddhism or their belief that Gautama's teachings in the eightfold path are original with him, Gautama, and you will know their kind of peculiar psychology on the one hand, and on the other that it is futile to engage in any decent academic discussion with them about the Buddhism they have designed for themselves.
The one Buddhist here will continuously tell the whole world that he hates me, and the other will continuously drum on the principle of his own kind of burden of proof, so that it is the denier who is burdened with the proof and not the allegator or the one making the allegation [pun not intended].
But it is truly enjoyable for a mental exercise in critical thinking and in the search for empirical evidence.
For readers and visitors to this thread, remember the distinction between discovery and invention; so that when it comes to a worldview to adopt for living, you stand a better chance of getting a realistic one from the modern philosophy and science of psychology, than from Buddhist lore mongers and other cultivators of ancient speculative systems, who did not know and had absolutely no inkling at all that plants are like humans, with sex organs and sexual reproduction.
Yrreg
What I really should be doing as we all should be doing when it comes to worldviews, study the psychology of people holding to a worldview, in particular the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum who claim to be and are proud to be called and to call themselves Buddhists, withal professing to practice critical thinking and to be keen on empirical evidence.
And what are the source materials for such a study? What else but the messages of people like the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum.
Just read the responses of Buddhists here to my comments about their core Buddhism or their belief that Gautama's teachings in the eightfold path are original with him, Gautama, and you will know their kind of peculiar psychology on the one hand, and on the other that it is futile to engage in any decent academic discussion with them about the Buddhism they have designed for themselves.
The one Buddhist here will continuously tell the whole world that he hates me, and the other will continuously drum on the principle of his own kind of burden of proof, so that it is the denier who is burdened with the proof and not the allegator or the one making the allegation [pun not intended].
But it is truly enjoyable for a mental exercise in critical thinking and in the search for empirical evidence.
For readers and visitors to this thread, remember the distinction between discovery and invention; so that when it comes to a worldview to adopt for living, you stand a better chance of getting a realistic one from the modern philosophy and science of psychology, than from Buddhist lore mongers and other cultivators of ancient speculative systems, who did not know and had absolutely no inkling at all that plants are like humans, with sex organs and sexual reproduction.
Yrreg
Tanstaafl
Unindicted Co-conspirator
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 5,463
Well, that may not have been pleasant to type, but for what it's worth (okay, admittedly not much) you went up a notch on my respectometer.
If you can find evidence that any Buddhist on this board claimed the eightfold path are original to Gautama Buddha, I will give you a million dollars.
All we have done is contested your claim that they're not. Something you've claimed more than once. When are you going to show us evidence that you're right? I'll probably agree with you if the evidence is good enough.
But evidence, sources and citations is not really your schtick, is it?
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Don't worry, he'll go back down in due time.
Especially since he's flaunting his "ability to admit he's wrong" in another thread...
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
And what allegation did I make Yrreg? You asked:
To which I answered:
So I answered your question:
"a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.'
and stated the eightfold path
and then I brought up your prior claim that it had been predated in other cultures.
This is your response:
So you did not address the answer or the question.
I responded with my view of the eightfold path here:
To which you responded thusly;
So in the usual fashion of Yrreg, you did not answer my question about your claim, but even more like yourself, you forgot your actual statement!
I mentioned a genuine piece of buddhism and you equivocated and didn't do AS YOU SAID YOU WOULD!
You failed to evaluate it for its merits from a rational and sceptic POV, rather typical of you it would seem, you make promises and never keep the.
Then I responded to your statement
Where you just assert that the buddha never made anything original, which may be true, what I asked you was to back up your claim that the eight fold path is predated in other cultures.
Your statement, yours to defend.
So we have you breaking your statements of intent and we have you failing to support your own statements, except for empty rhetoric.
As usually, you just hate the fact that there are people who are buddhists and that they may also call themselves sceptics.
SO WHAT IS NOT SCEPTICAL ABOUT MY PRESENTATION OF THE EIGHTFOLD PATH?
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
So now Yrreg has a thing for the sex organs of plants?
I wonder if he think's I'm a Buddhist? Or if I'm not a Buddhist?
I think he think's I hate him. I have contempt for him - different thing.
Silly Yrreg.
I wonder if he think's I'm a Buddhist? Or if I'm not a Buddhist?
I think he think's I hate him. I have contempt for him - different thing.
Silly Yrreg.